MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [by Order]. (Hansard, 6 May 1909)

§ Mr. A. C. MORTON
I did hope the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the opportunity I invited him to take to give some reply to my observations, but I have another opportunity on this Bill. Although I am not going over again what I said before, I take the opportunity to move the rejection of this Bill, pro formâ, to allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply. I 1301 think we are entitled to a reply after the promises of the President of the Board of Trade, as to whether he will allow this matter to come before his Department and be dealt with.

§ Mr. HUDSON
I second the Amendment for the purpose of taking the opportunity of having a word or two with regard to this company. The hon. Member on the other side of the House, in a very considerate statement, said in the matter of these companies coming together there must necessarily be alterations and also reduction of the men employed. That is quite true. We are prepared to face it, provided we are faced fairly with it. I do not think the Midland Railway Company, of all companies, has done exactly the right thing. The hon. Member for Stockport referred to the Midland Railway Company making great reductions for the purpose of this amalgamation scheme, and it is within the knowledge also of the President of the Board of Trade that the company late in last year dismissed no less than 140 goods guards from their service. These were not the youngest hands in their service either. In very many cases they were the higher-paid men. I want to say that it has always been an axiom, a recognised usage, with all the railway companies in the country that there was some security of employment for the men who had service. I want to know from whoever speaks on behalf of the company as to whether we are now to understand that seniority of service counts for nothing. These men's services ranged from five years to over 30. It becomes a very serious matter, because my experience in negotiating and in dealing with matters over a very long time has always been this: That wherever we approached a railway company for an advance of wages we were always told that seniority of service carried with it security of employment, and that security of employment counted for something in considering the maximum wage. If that is gone, so far as the Midland Railway Company is concerned, it is a serious matter.
I want to call the attention of the House to a return of the hours of employment for October last, and particular attention to 1302 this fact, that at that time there was returned 2,631 goods guards by the Midland Company. That shows a great diminution from the number employed in April of the same year. Of course I can account for this to some extent in this way—that I can assume that during the summer months and the latter part of the year the men of the goods department, who were working passenger traffic, would be regarded as passenger men. But the most important thing is that the return for the month showing the hours worked show over 12 per day. These men have a 10 hours' maximum day. Let the House take that into consideration. This return takes off the time spent in travelling. It does not show the amount of time that was occupied, but it states that all is taken off after the responsible duty ends. I know what responsible duty means. After that has been done we have out of this number of men 246 cases in one month where 12 hours have been exceeded in the day's work. That, in other words, is a percentage of 9.35 of men working over 12 hours, and these men have a 10 hours' standard day. I want to point this out to the Midland Company, that they have been exceedingly harsh in their treatment of these men, in the matter of taking these men of senior service and dismissing them—a wholesale dismissal of 140 men. Forty only of them have been re-employed—not reinstated—at about 6s. or 7s. a week less than they had originally. If we do have this system of companies coming together, let us at least have a little bit of fair treatment towards the men. Instead of this class of ruthless dismissals, at least let us consider a fair reduction in the hours of work. Then there will be no need to dismiss at all. This is a fair time, I think, for bringing the matter before the notice of the railway company. I think that if all the railway companies concerned would consider this matter they would find that the claims of the men for a reduction of hours is fair and reasonable, and that if it was fairly met there would be the solution, so far as the present staff is concerned, and you need not disturb employment at all. It would only then affect the future. I should like some assurance from the Midland Company, if it is possible for anyone to speak with authority for them, that at the least this matter of dismissing men with long service will be done away with, and that security of employment will be ensured for men who have served a long number of years with the company. The 1303 second thing I would wish to have an assurance upon is that the company should be as fair as they have been in former years. Let me point out that they were exceedingly fair during the great strike of miners in the Midland Counties of 1893. They did not dismiss their men at all, but they distributed the work amongst the whole of the men. We have seen railway companies in the past during prolonged depression in trade, when compelled to reduce their hands, always reduced the last comers-on. Why not in this case? It is only fair. Let us have some assurance in these matters of candour and fair play. I second the Amendment.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill has dealt with matters which I think ought to be replied to by someone who can speak with authority in this House for the railway company. I have been informed that the matter to which he referred in reference to the goods guards has been dealt with by the Conciliation Board. At any rate, that is not an aspect of the subject with which I shall deal. I can only say upon this Bill, as I said upon the last, that I hope the Inquiry which I have promised into a working agreement and amalgamation generally—the reference has to be very carefully drawn out to cover the whole ground—I hope that Inquiry will enable the hon. Gentleman and those interested to go upstairs and to be there heard by the Committee. The report of that Inquiry I propose to lay before Parliament. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherland has said, I may remark there is nothing in this Bill about the matter, and there is nothing in the Inquiry to which I referred about it, but, at the same time, I will answer him. The Inquiry will deal with railway amalgamation, and I do not think it would be a good thing for us to mix that up with any other subject. If we were to open the door a great many other things would press for consideration. But I certainly do not stand here to represent any new view of policy on the part of the Board of Trade with regard to third-class sleeping accommodation. It think it is extremely desirable, and as far as we have any influence, we shall endeavour to persuade the railway companies to adopt it, whether we shall be successful or not I do not know. I certainly think that to people travelling a 1304 long distance at night—very often women, and young women—it is a matter of very considerable hardship that there is no lying-down accommodation similar to that provided for those who pay larger fares, and certainly I will do what I can if the opportunity is offered to induce the railway companies to make that experiment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there does not seem to be any ground for assuming at present that it is an experiment which it would be financially impossible to carry out. I have made that reply not because I wish to intervene again, but because in courtesy I thought an answer was due to the hon. Member.

§ Mr. BEALE
I regret to be obliged to inform the hon. Gentleman for Newcastle-on-Tyne that I have no authority to make his position any stronger against the railway company in this matter. I do not think that these points were at all communicated to the railway company in connection with the opposition to this Bill. Other points which were communicated to the company will, I have no doubt, be entertained and discussed, and some suitable arrangement will be arrived at. I am sure that any railway company which chooses to entertain such matters in a reasonable way will be acting to their advantage. There was one point to which the hon. Member referred, and to which I understand due consideration will be given. He spoke about the goods guards. He must be aware there has recently been an award upon that matter, and it was only to-day that the secretary to the Central Conciliation Board wrote in these terms to the general manager of the Midland Railway:— No complaint has reached me from any source that the company had failed to carry out fully their part of the arrangement. A certain number of the goods guards have been taken back into the company's service, and although naturally I should like to see more taken back, I am of opinion that every promise made by you in connection with the goods guards service has been faithfully carried out. The hon. Member may rest assured that every grievance between the company and its servants will be inquired into and adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties in the same spirit.

§ Mr. MORTON
I desire to withdraw the Amendment, and to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and to say I have no wish at all to injure this company in any way whatever or to prevent legislation on their behalf.